The Never Ending Which Lens Question

The 12-24 and 28-70 seem like good choices.
As much as I like the 18-200vr for travel and convenience, if you're starting to shoot for money I'd stick with the pro level lenses.

 

I have the 18-200VR and recently acquired the Beast. I also have a Tokina 12-24.

My 18-200 VR is a very versatile lens and I've captured some sharp photos with it. However, the only sporting event where I'd want to use it is panning in a race. If you're in bright daylight, it's probably fine with other sports. However, you do not want this lens if you're shooting basketball or some other indoor sport. You'll have sharp bleachers and blurry players.

I can't tell you too much about the Beast yet, as I've only taken it for one outing. The first thing I tried to shoot was a collection of baby ducks at f/2.8. Got the mama nice and sharp and a bunch of blurry ducklings. The DOF is finicky wide open. Yet, I wanted to try out my f/2.8 and I did. I also learned it's not appropriate for everything.

The nice thing about the 18-200 VR is that you can get good portraits, wide angle shots both inside and out, and it covers a longer range. However, it's not your best sports photography lens.

The 12-24 & the Beast will do the same job and do it very well, but it won't have the reach for your sports shots. At least it's faster than the 18-200 if you can get the players to come close to your location.

There's always a compromise somewhere.

 

Well since you have the 85 f/1.8 you could get rid of your Sigma 28-70 and your 20 f/2.8 prime and just get the 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon DX lens. This would give you a good wide angle and zoom up to a good range with your next hop being the 85 f/1.8. Just another option.

 

You already have a Sigma 28-70 2.8, so you could hold off on "The Beast" till later. I have "The Beast" and love it though. Outstanding quality!

You may want to test drive the Tokina 12-24 f4 if you're thinking about a wideangle. I have this lens and it's outstanding. I could have spent the extra $$$ and got the Nikon version, but there's very little difference in quality between the two, but quite a bit of cost difference. With the cost savings, you could apply it toward The Beast down the road (or maybe now, :biggrin: ).

Happy shopping!

John

 

Beware of the Beast. My mind told me that the Tamron 15-50 f/2.8 was fine for my amateur needs. Once I held all the prospective choices in my grubby little hands, I chose the expensive one.

It's insidious.

 

I think the 18-200 would be awfully redundant with the lenses you have and want to get.

 

The 18-200 is redundant with respect to focal lengths, but it's a nice, light alternative for a walk-around lens without carrying a heavy bag of glass.

 

Steph, I'd avoid the 18-200 for your needs. I think your best combo would be either the Nikon/Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 28-70 OR the Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 17-55. Many times 17/18mm won't be wide enough for architectural interiors... so add a super-wide and one of the legendary Nikkors for all the other stuff, and you'll be golden!